Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 

About: Evidence Based Library and Information Practice is an academic journal published by University of Alberta. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Information literacy & Computer science. It has an ISSN identifier of 1715-720X. It is also open access. Over the lifetime, 908 publications have been published receiving 4996 citations. The journal is also known as: EBLIP.

Library Instruction and Academic Success: A mixed - methods assessment of a library instruction program

Abstract: Objectives – This study examines the connection between student academic success and information literacy instruction. Locally, it allowed librarians to ascertain the institution’s saturation rate for information literacy instruction and identify academic programs not utilizing library instruction services. In a broader application, it provides an argument for a tiered program of information literacy instruction and offers student perspectives on improving a library instruction program. Methods – Focus groups with 15 graduating seniors, all of whom had attended at least one library instruction session, discussed student experiences and preferences regarding library instruction. An analysis of 4,489 academic transcripts of graduating seniors identified differences in grade point average (GPA) between students with different levels of library instruction. Results – Students value library instruction for orientation purposes as beginning students, and specialized, discipline-specific library instruction in upper-level courses. There is a statistically significant difference in GPA between graduating seniors who had library instruction in upper-level courses (defined in this study as post-freshman-level) and those who did not. Conclusions – Library instruction seems to make the most difference to student success when it is repeated at different levels in the university curriculum, especially when it is offered in upper-level courses. Instruction librarians should differentiate between lower-division and upper-division learning objectives for students in order to create a more cohesive and non-repetitive information literacy curriculum.

Effective Methods for Teaching Information Literacy Skills to Undergraduate Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract: Objective - The objective of this review was to assess which library instruction methods are most effective for improving the information skills of students at an introductory, undergraduate level, using cognitive outcomes (measuring changes in knowledge). The study sought to address the following questions: 1) What is the overall state of research on this topic? 2) Which teaching methods are more effective? Methods - Systematic review methodology was used. Fifteen databases were searched for relevant articles retrieving 4356 potentially relevant citations. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance. Of those, 257 full articles were considered in-depth using a predetermined inclusion/exclusion form. 122 unique studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent an extensive data extraction and critical appraisal process. 55 of these studies met author defined quality criteria to provide information on the effectiveness of different teaching methods. Of these, 16 studies provided sufficient information to enable meta-analyses using standardized mean difference to be undertaken. Results - The overwhelming majority of studies were conducted in the United States (88%). 79 studies (65%) used experimental or quasi-experimental research methods. Teaching methods used in the studies varied, with the majority focused on traditional methods of teaching, followed by computer assisted instruction, and self-directed independent learning. Studies measured outcomes that correlated with Bloom’s lower levels of learning (Remember, Understand, Apply). 16 studies compared traditional instruction with no instruction, and 12 found a positive outcome. Meta-analysis of the data from 4 of these studies agreed with the positive conclusions favouring traditional instruction. 14 studies compared computer assisted instruction with traditional instruction. 9 of these showed a neutral result, and meta-analysis of 8 of these studies agreed with this neutral result. 6 studies compared self-directed independent learning with no instruction, and meta-analysis of 5 of these agreed that the result was positive in favour of self-directed independent learning. Conclusions - Based on the results of this meta-analysis, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that computer assisted instruction is as effective as traditional instruction. Evidence also suggests that both traditional instruction and self-directed independent instruction are more effective than no instruction. Additional comparative research needs to be done across different teaching methods. Studies comparing active learning, computer assisted instruction, and self-directed independent learning would greatly enrich the research literature. Further studies utilizing appropriate methodologies and validated research tools would enrich our evidence base, and contribute to the growth of knowledge about effectiveness of particular teaching methods.